- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Los Angeles
- New York
- Newark
- San Francisco
- Washington, D.C.
- Geneva
- London
- Moscow
- Paris

Home > Legal Services > Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation > Matters

Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation

Michael Melbinger
T: +1 (312) 558-7588 | Email

Employee Retirement and Pension Plans

ERISA Litigation

Executive Compensation

Health and Welfare Benefits


Senzarin v. Abbott Severance Pay Plan for Employees of Kos Pharmaceuticals Abbott Laboratories Our attorneys secured a victory for Abbott Laboratories in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld a ruling that an Abbott pharmaceutical sales representative was ineligible for severance benefits. The plaintiff sought the benefits after she quit on “good reason” because she alleged she was forced to travel more than 50 miles from her home for work. But Abbott, using a “straight-line measurement” analysis to measure distance via a weighted average, found the pharmaceutical sales rep actually travelled under 50 miles. The court ruled that it was not unreasonable for Abbott to use its method to calculate her distance and that Abbott did not act arbitrarily when denying the benefits.

In Re AIG ERISA Litigation Howard I. Smith Winston & Strawn represents Howard I. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer of American International Group, Inc. (AIG), in several pending civil litigation matters arising out of the alleged insurance industry-wide bid-rigging and undisclosed contingent commissions paid to insurance brokers, AIG’s 2005 restatement of its financial statements for the years 2000 through 2004, and other matters. The firm has secured favorable settlements of certain of the matters on behalf of our client, including a federal consolidated ERISA action brought against AIG and certain of its current and former executives for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to properly manage AIG’s ERISA plans. Our client made no payment.

Executive Compensation Dispute We recently represented a large financial services institution in the defense of an employee’s claim for breach of a golden parachute agreement. Plaintiff alleged that, following his termination, he was entitled to a severance package worth nearly $90 million. After prevailing on each of seven motions in limine, Plaintiff’s maximum potential recovery was reduced to $3.5 million. The case soon settled on extremely favorable, but confidential, terms that were well below the client’s anticipated liability

Christopher Faber v. K Hovanian Communities, Inc. K. Hovnanian Companies Winston & Strawn recently won summary judgment on behalf of K. Hovnanian in a claim brought by a former employee for breach of contract, misrepresentation and unfair business practices, arising out of the denial of his claim for long-term disability benefits under the company's long-term disability insurance plan.

Arrington v. Abbott Laboratories Abbott Laboratories We successfully represented Abbott Laboratories in a multi-plaintiff case alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The case was brought by 31 former employees of Abbott’s Rocky Mount, N.C., facility who lost their retirement savings in a Ponzi scheme and contended that Abbott and Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co., the administrator of Abbott’s retirement plan, were allegedly responsible. Plaintiffs argued that Abbott regularly allowed the Ponzi scheme artist to attend parties at the facility and held him as a reputable “investment advisor.” The court found that Abbott never endorsed any investment advisor. In addition, the court found that neither Abbott nor Putnam breached any fiduciary duty toward the plaintiffs when they

Nauman v. Abbott Laboratories Abbott Laboratories After an eight-day bench trial following six years of litigation, our attorneys secured a complete victory for Abbott Laboratories in a class action involving 8,000 members who claimed a right to more than $350 million in lost employee benefits. The plaintiffs alleged that Abbott violated ERISA by spinning off its largest division to form a new $7 billion company, Hospira, allegedly for the purpose of interfering with employee benefits. The court disagreed, ruling in Abbott’s favor on every claim.

People of the State of New York by Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of the State of New York v. Richard A. Grasso, et al. New York Stock Exchange In a high-profile Wall Street investigation, Winston & Strawn attorneys, led by Dan Webb, conducted an internal investigation at the New York Stock Exchange related to the compensation of its former Chairman and CEO, Richard A. Grasso, who resigned after public disclosure of his compensation package. Following Winston’s investigation, summarized in what is now known as the “Webb Report,” the New York’s Attorney General's Office sued Grasso for the return of more than $120 million in compensation. The Attorney General’s lawsuit claimed that, during the time that the NYSE was a not-for-profit corporation, Grasso’s level of executive pay violated the requirement under New York’s Not-For-Profit Corporation Law (“N-PCL”) that compensation of not

National Foreign Trade Council, et al. v. Giannoulias National Foreign Trade Council Inc. Winston & Strawn represented the National Foreign Trade Council, eight municipal fire and police pension funds, and eight individual beneficiaries of public pension funds in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 2005 Illinois Act to End Atrocities and Terrorism in the Sudan (the Illinois Sudan Act). The Act prohibited the deposit of Illinois state funds in any financial institution failing to certify that neither it nor any of its borrowers did business related to the country of Sudan. It also prohibited public pension funds from investing in any company that has direct or indirect commercial connections to that country. Winston attorneys argued that the Illinois Sudan Act intruded on the federal government’s exclusive power o

Peggy Hawkins-Dean v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Our attorneys were successful on behalf of MetLife in having the United States Supreme Court vacate and remand a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an ERISA disability benefits case. Our attorneys represented MetLife, administrator of Robert Half International’s long-term health and disability plan, in case brought by a Robert Half employee. The Ninth Circuit held that MetLife should have included the amount the employee earned from stock options in her disability benefits.

RLJCS Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Professional Benefit Trust, Inc. et al. Professional Benefit Trust, Inc. Winston & Strawn secured a summary judgment decision, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, for the Professional Benefit Trust Multiple Employer Welfare Benefit Plan and Trust (the “Trust”) in a unique case involving a welfare benefit plan that was designed and operated to allow employers to pre-fund certain benefits on a tax-deferred basis pursuant to IRC § 419A(f)(6). The plaintiffs, who contracted with our client for death benefits, alleged 16 counts including violations of civil RICO, ERISA, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, and other state law claims. As a means of reinsuring itself for payment of the death benefits, the Trust purchased life

Paulsen v. CNF, Inc. et al. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PB Winston & Strawn attorneys represented the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. PBGC won summary judgment on the pleadings that a plaintiff could not bring such an action under Title I of ERISA against PBGC.

USAirways Pension Litigation AON Corporation We represented the named fiduciary of the USAirways retirement plans against allegations that the plan’s investments in Company stock violated fiduciary duties under ERISA.

Morrison v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. The plaintiff's claim for allegedly owing benefits under the client's life insurance plan was denied as untimely. The plaintiff relied on alleged discrepancies in the plan document and SPD to argue a different limitations period should apply.

Cokenour v. Household International, Inc., et al. Household Interntional - Board of Direct The firm represented Household International in a national class action brought in the Northern District of Illinois against our client alleging violations of ERISA related to the investment of plan assets in Company stock.

Hammond v. Wise Alloys Wise Metals Group LLC The firm won a motion to dismiss an ERISA class action suit brought against client Wise Alloys.

Black & Decker v. Nord Black & Decker The firm secured a 9-0 victory from the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Black & Decker in an ERISA matter.

Clingerman v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp. Smurfit Stone Container Corporation Winston & Strawn represented Smurfit-Stone Container in a commercial arbitration in July 2002 involving claims for high-level executive severance and bonus pay following a merger "change in control."

Perrin J. Pinta v. Pharmacia Corporation Pfizer Inc. Our attorneys represented a Pharmacia in an administrative hearing before the Department of Labor involving claims for severance pay, pro rata bonus amounts and vacation pay.

Friz v. Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. We represented Marsh & McLennan in an ERISA class action suit in which the plaintiffs sought millions of dollars in damages in connection with the administration of a severance pay plan.

Blackwell v. Deluxe Corp. Deluxe Corporation We represented Deluxe in an ERISA class action in which the plaintiffs sought millions of dollars in damages in connection with the company’s failure to pay severance benefits after the sale of a business unit.

Jackson and Serment v. Brach’s Confections Brach's Confections, Inc. We defended Brach in a case filed in the Northern District of Illinois in which the plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to substantive benefits due to Brach’ s alleged procedural violations of ERISA.

Gilbert, et al. v. Ameritech Corporation, et al. AT&T A group of 39 former employees terminated during a reduction-in-force filed an ADEA and ERISA suit against Ameritech and related entities, including class action allegations for violations of ERISA Section 510.

Armstrong, et al. v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation Smurfit Stone Container Corporation This action was filed in Massachusetts District Court by two retirees who claimed that Jefferson Smurfit breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to advise them of the tax consequences of accepting lump-sum payments in exchange for discontinuing their health insurance benefits.

Gardner v. Container Corporation of America, et al. Container Corporation of America We defended Container Corporation of America (CCA) against a plaintiff’s claims of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA after our client’s benefit plan administrator declined to provide the plaintiff with health insurance coverage.

UPIU v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation Smurfit Stone Container Corporation We represented Jefferson Smurfit Corp. (JSC) in a class action filed by various unions and more than 3,500 retirees under ERISA and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act challenging changes to JSC’s retiree medical benefits plan and the portion of the cost charged to retirees.

Goggans v. Container Corporation of America Container Corporation of America We represented Container Corporation of America (CCA) in a class action filed by former employees of three plants that had been sold.

Alday v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation Smurfit Stone Container Corporation Winston & Strawn represented JSC in a nationwide class action lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of salaried retirees who claimed that the company's changes to and increases in the cost charged for retiree medical benefits violated, inter alia, ERISA.

UIFO v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al. - I United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor A group of dissident pilots filed this $140 million ADEA and ERISA suit against United and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) alleging that United’s pilot-defined benefit pension plan was age discriminatory, violated ERISA benefit accrual and fiduciary standards, and failed to refund employee contributions and to give full credit under the plan for all years of service of its older pilots.

UIFO v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al. - II United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor This unrelated suit filed by the same dissident group against United and ALPA alleged a multimillion-dollar breach of the duty of fair representation and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA in connection with United’s pilot-defined contribution pension plan.

Addison v. United Air Lines, Inc. United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor In this case, dissident pilots and others sued to prevent United from conducting a spinoff/termination of the pilots’ defined benefit pension plan to recover over $500 million in excess assets.

Monroe-Higman v. United Air Lines, Inc. United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor The threshold issue in this case was whether United’s mandatory age-60 policy for all flight-deck crew members was legal under ADEA.